Forum — Tournament Committee

Oelm

4/15/2011 9:07 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Not only problems but also their own achievements.

Added 3 minutes ago
By the way, maybe I don't understand something about the SOD vs. WoG conflict. But, in my opinion, absolutely all the strongest SOD players have long come to a common conclusion. Namely, the need to create a WoG-lite, that is, SOD gameplay with a WoG interface. With the advent of the HD Mod, the need for this disappeared. Therefore, Vik's kilometer-long posts look strange, as he still hasn't understood. SOD has long become an ironclad classic. All this stuff like Starcraft and Warcraft didn't even come close. These are temporarily popular games; all versions die out after the release of a new upgrade. Starcraft 1 killed Warcraft, Starcraft 2 is destroying Starcraft 1, and Blizzard's new version will bury Starcraft 2. Correct me if I'm wrong. But SOD is a Titan of the modern gaming industry; Heroes 6 and WoG have already appeared, and everything is still firmly in place, unshakable. There is no need to look for explanations in all sorts of nonsense, like conservatism and rigidity of the mind; this cannot explain the success of the third Heroes compared to similar creations of the industry.

At the same time, the strength of the WoG version is undoubtedly in its dynamics. I am very interested in new directions, the possibility of changing the content of hive-conservatories, as well as mirror templates, although, imo, not everything will take root over time. + what the winner of RP-1 and RP-2, Artem - Stinger, wrote about - a strong player base. The reason, it seems to me, is that players who come to WoG quickly begin to play HL+U templates, which sharply affects their skill. Many SOD players, on the other hand, limit themselves to CM or mini-nostalgia. And morale, GS, and the like are a secondary matter.

By the way, have you noticed that in modern sports, there is a tendency to increase the level of randomness in the game? For example, in football, for this reason, video replays have not been introduced yet. And the unpredictably flying Jabulani ball?? Perhaps in the WoG version, it is worth switching to a game with morale sooner or later; after all, battles with it are much more interesting and meaningful.

Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.

In reply to Oelm

Dirty_Player

4/15/2011 9:20 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Oelm

Ah, specifically, the need to make a turn-based light version, that is, a SOD-style gameplay.

Don't you understand what will come of this? It will be the same as it is now with HD. Give us a choice, make it expensive, give us chess clocks... then there will be level 2 and 3 stacks, then mirror matches, and then we'll come to the conclusion that necromancy isn't needed either, and it will all go downhill.
Or do we have different ideas about SOD-style gameplay?:confused:

In reply to Dirty_Player

Oelm

4/15/2011 9:28 AM UTC

Auto-translated

And here, by the way, necromancy, in my opinion, is unnecessary (and it was the same in the Chaos patch).

Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.

R55Max

4/15/2011 11:08 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Message from Oelm:
By the way, have you noticed that modern sports are increasingly leaning towards increasing the level of randomness in the game? For example, in football, video replays have not been implemented yet for this reason. And what about the unpredictably flying Jabulani ball? Perhaps in the Heroes of Might and Magic version, it is worth eventually switching to a game with morale; after all, battles with morale are much more interesting and meaningful.

Absolutely correct. I already wrote about this example above. It increases the spectacle, and this is inevitable for development.

Message from Dirty_Player:
Give us a choice, give us chess clocks... then there will be level 2 and 3 stacks, then mirrors, and then we will come to the conclusion that necromancy is not needed, and it will all go downhill.

They won't let you do too much, and if they do, they won't use it. The author himself must understand whether something is needed or not.
Take roads, for example. Let's take Dungeon against Castle on some template with a quick encounter, or any other, the same skirmish with Goblins on a roadless map. It's easier to level up quickly and come to dominate due to starting power on fast maps, it's much more difficult on slow maps. So, switching entirely to fast maps is just an addition to the imbalance. Initially, you plan without knowing what roads there will be, and if you know, you will completely forget what Dungeon creatures look like because you won't let them play, or at most, they will only be able to ramp up, like Necropolis with necromancy.

Take skeletons, for example. For Necropolis, necromancy is the only trump card. It has also been reduced, but it cannot be removed. Otherwise, they will simply become unconditional outsiders.

МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...

In reply to Oelm

KobRa_RR

4/15/2011 11:25 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Oelm

By the way, have you noticed that modern sports are increasingly leaning towards increasing the level of randomness in the game? For example, in football, video replays have not been implemented for this reason. And the unpredictably flying Jabulani ball?? Perhaps in the WoT version, it is worth moving towards a game with morale, as battles with it are much more interesting and meaningful.

This is called entertainment. WoT is moving in the same direction. All the changes being made enrich the game and make it more interesting and unpredictable (hives, mirrors, etc.). The fewer any kind of drop-off (or "drop") variants, the better.

In reply to R55Max

Oelm

4/15/2011 11:29 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Max, you should learn how to play a bit more before making categorical judgments about the strength of Castles and other things. It's kind of funny to read how someone who doesn't understand the turn order in battle tries to evaluate balance, opposing Stinger, for example. Specifically, if you played SoD with more skill, you would realize that necromancy in its current form brings far more downsides and impoverishes the game.

2Kobra: no one is arguing with the obvious; it's just that Vic sometimes likes to present his own beliefs as generally accepted ones.

Here is something else that came to mind. Heroes 3 SoD is a social game, whereas "grindy" games like StarCraft, WarCraft, or Counter-Strike are antisocial. Specifically, you can be a good player in Heroes and still have a successful job, a personal life, and sometimes even a family). Meanwhile, top-level WarCrafters and StarCrafters who memorize build orders for 8 hours a day will likely be deprived of these things. Is it worth making it your goal to get into the VCG and strive toward the format of VCG games? Or perhaps you should seek your own path of development instead?

Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.

In reply to R55Max

Dirty_Player

4/15/2011 11:43 AM UTC

Auto-translated

R55Max

Take the same skeletons. Necropolis's only advantage is necromancy. It has also been nerfed, but it can't be removed completely. Otherwise, they will simply become undeniable underdogs.

Where did you get this information from? Do you think that Necropolis is the weakest faction in Warlords? :confused:

In general, Oelm is right. I mentioned this a few pages ago. Play a hundred or so games in Warlords first, and then you will have a more realistic understanding. Maybe even about morale.

In reply to Dirty_Player

StickyFingaz

4/15/2011 12:16 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Here is something else that came to mind. Heroes 3 SoD is a social game, whereas "grindy" games like StarCraft, WarCraft, or Counter-Strike are antisocial. Specifically, you can be a good player in Heroes and still have a successful job, a personal life, and sometimes even a family). Meanwhile, top-tier WarCrafters and StarCrafters, who memorize build orders for 8 hours a day, will most likely be deprived of these things.

lol. Top-tier StarCrafters earn an order of magnitude more than the average Heroes player. A Heroes player works 8 hours a day, and a StarCrafter spends just as much time grinding tactics; that's basically their job.

Wicc

4/15/2011 12:18 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Here is something else that came to mind. Heroes 3 SoD is a social game, whereas grindy games like Starcraft-Warcraft - Counter-Strike - are antisocial. In particular, you can be a good player in Heroes and still have a successful job, a personal life, and sometimes even a family).

And what about VT, it isn't? :)

The amount of grinding in sc-wc-cs is determined by the fact that these are games based on precise coordination; a break in training reduces the speed and accuracy of actions. But in Heroes, for most features, it is enough to learn them once and you've already remembered them. You can go without playing for a couple of years and restore your game form in full within a week. This applies to both SoD and VT.

R55Max

4/15/2011 12:26 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Max, you should learn how to play before making definitive judgments about the strength of factions and other things. It's a bit amusing to read how someone who doesn't understand the turn order in battle tries to assess the balance, for example, by arguing with Stinger. In particular, if you played SOD better, you would understand that necromancy in its current form gives much more disadvantages and makes the game poorer.

Call Prokhorov, who didn't play basketball, or Serdyukov (a businessman and head of the Ministry of Defense) and say the same things. You don't have to be a TOP player to judge. As far as I know, not all athletes are good coaches, and vice versa.

The fact that I don't know something, I ask. Don't worry about the skill, I have many chances to increase it, considering that I strive to improve it. All questions are aimed at learning something new, which is a sign of striving, not noobism.

Message from Dirty_Player:
Where did you get this information from? Do you think that Necropolis is the weakest in WoG?

And in general, Oelm is right. I said this a few pages ago. Play a hundred or two games in WoG first, and then you will have a more realistic idea. Maybe even about morale.

Wait a minute, what does it mean he's right? He said the same things that I said earlier. Maybe the problem is that it's hard to accept the correctness of a newbie? And it's very easy and painless to tell any newcomer to go and learn. Well, I'm learning and I will continue to do so, I will play in WoG too - I will understand the difference in more detail, but in general, I, as an ignorant person, already have many supporters in terms of understanding the game. I communicate not only on the forum, but also in ICQ with many people, in any case, including those who are far from being newbies, and I know how to listen to them, make assessments, my statements are not only the result of my personal views. I think I said that. And now, should I shut up and not complain? You wrote 10 posts on the forum in response to me, but in ICQ I gained knowledge equivalent to thousands of posts.

Don't compare skill and views. It's clear that when you don't know the details, your assessment may be incorrect, but the path is always difficult, and if I make statements and the TOP player can't convince me (or the majority), how can this TOP player be trusted? In terms of the game, yes, he is an ace, but in terms of organizational work and the validity of arguments?
And finally, if my statements cause a resonance, then they mean something, so we will continue. And I accept advice and learn, the only question is what kind of advice it is... like "shut up, noob" or "here, please read." The difference is obvious.

I'm not saying that he is weak in WoG. I'm talking about SOD. That he will be an outsider. We can argue about this or not, but it is clear that the race will become much weaker.

P.S. I made a mistake in the reply. The fact that Oelm pointed out my lack of knowledge in the game is clear to me and was done in a normal way, and I personally strive for this, so I will also ask questions, develop, learn to play, and maybe you yourself will not be able to stand against me in the game someday))) that's all.

МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...

In reply to R55Max

Oelm

4/15/2011 12:38 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Prokhorov and biathlon! Prokhorov and basketball. By the way, he performed purely managerial functions without interfering in the sporting aspects. The result is known. And the fact that in Courchevel he miraculously avoided being implicated in pimping is also known.

lol. top-level Starcraft players earn an order of magnitude more than the average Heroes of Might and Magic player. A Heroes of Might and Magic player works 8 hours a day, and a Starcraft player spends the same amount of time practicing tactics; this is their job.

An order of magnitude means 10 times? I highly doubt that someone like Pomidor earns 10 times more than a decent Heroes of Might and Magic player.

Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.

=Stinger=

4/15/2011 12:43 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In the Chaos patch for Соде, Necromancy was removed from the Necropolis, but the castle remained as strong as it is now in ВТ. Therefore, it is not worth saying that the absence of Necromancy in Соде will destroy the Necropolis. The strength of the Necropolis lies in Galtaran with 3 stacks of skeletons and a transformer.

Wicc

4/15/2011 1:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

You don't necessarily have to be a TOP player to judge.

Of course, it's not necessary. You can perfectly understand a game even if you're not very good at it.

For example, I wrote a lot of good articles about StarCraft, even though I was just an average player at my peak. And I wrote most of the articles after I had stopped playing competitively, meaning I wouldn't even be able to beat an average player. Yes, sometimes this led to mistakes, and I was corrected, but overall the texts were quite adequate.

But not many people can do that. And in your current state, you clearly aren't one of them (objectively speaking, no offense). That's why you're being advised to at least reach the level of an average player; maybe then your analytical skills (if you have any) will produce adequate results.

I repeat, the main thing is the right train of thought. If it's wrong, then it makes sense to look for the reasons – either you lack skill, or you lack intelligence, or something else.

Take, for example, your discussion with Stinger about morality. I don't agree with Stinger's position; in my opinion, he goes to extremes. But our disagreements are quantitative, in the assessment of the degree of influence (I believe it is higher), and not on the essence of the issue. Here, we can discuss it constructively and perhaps even come to a common opinion (even if it turns out to be multifaceted). But your position is purely wrong, and your arguments only emphasize this fact. Therefore, constructive discussion is difficult here.

Similarly, regarding entertainment value – it's good that you recognize the importance of this aspect of the game and are looking for factors that influence it. But either due to a lack of experience with this issue or due to initial bias, your conclusions turn out to be wrong, and again, your arguments only emphasize this.

I myself have analyzed and discussed this issue in relation to various computer games (and even traditional sports), so I see the flaws with the naked eye, much like an experienced musician hears obvious dissonance in a melody.

The specifics of discussing the issue of entertainment value is that there is little subjectivity here; you can't say "there's no accounting for taste," entertainment value is a perfectly objective parameter that can even be measured numerically. Therefore, the approach to opinions here is appropriate.

Here is my old article, one of the first steps in esports journalism - http://cyberfight.ru/site/columns/56/article_18911/, which discusses the entertainment value of an esports game. I just reviewed it, and of course, there's a lot of naivety and awkwardness there, but all the key factors are surprisingly accurately identified (I even praised myself). And most importantly, subsequent events have shown the correctness of this approach.

StickyFingaz

4/15/2011 1:06 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Is it really 10 times more? I highly doubt that some "Tomato" earns 10 times more than an average Heroes player.

http://forum.sc2tv.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=575&d=1300721937
earnings since the release of the beta version of Heroes II (about a year). This doesn't include salaries from clans and advertising contracts.

KobRa_RR

4/15/2011 1:11 PM UTC

Auto-translated

The format of the WCG – a blitz match on Might & Magic, lasting a maximum of 2-3 hours, with autobattles and a 1-minute turn time. We don't need this kind of WCG. However, with proper marketing, it is possible to attract sponsors. But someone needs to take care of that.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Forum

Statistics

Library

Users Online 8 users 1391 guests

Today's Visitors 19